Legalized polygyny is just laissez-faire capitalism applied to the sexual realm
Debunking the Argument that Polygyny Destroys Civilization by Spawning an Unproductive Underclass of Sexually Disenfranchised Men
"I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."
One of the most common arguments against legal and cultural acceptance of polygyny (the form of polygamy in which one man can have multiple wives) is that a small number of highly desirable men would monopolize all the women, leaving an underclass of sexually disenfranchised men with no incentive to be productive members of society. Sure, monogamists argue, some omegas could learn game and become alphas or greater betas, but there still won't be enough women to go around unless society limits each man to one wife. According to monogamists, civilization depends on an equitable distribution of women, so that the restless desperation of involuntarily celibate young men doesn't impel them to resort to criminal activities, or even rise up en masse and overthrow the social order.
This is similar to the argument socialists raise, that capitalism gives workers little incentive to be productive, because money that could otherwise be devoted to rewarding them for their service goes to the business owners. Sure, they say, with a lot of effort, a worker could rise into management, or get rich starting his own business; but there is only room in the economy for a certain number of managers and entrepreneurs. There will still be some have-nots unless the government takes some money away from the rich to provide a social safety net. If we could level the playing field a bit, socialists claim, we would eliminate the worst injustices and give everyone a fair chance.
The problem with state intervention in the economy is that it makes society as a whole poorer. Taking away money from people who earned their wealth through hard work and good business decisions prevents productive industrial geniuses from expanding their empire to serve more customers. It also diminishes the incentives for people to take upon themselves the burdens and risks involving in becoming rich. This is why the Soviet Union was never able to match the U.S. economically.
Capitalism promotes innovation in the economic sphere
Under capitalism, the up-and-coming entrepreneurs and the wealthy---if they want to remain wealthy---are on the forefront of developing innovative products and shrewdly implementing a business plan for selling them to privileged early adopters and, eventually, the masses. They gain more experience and wealth that they then leverage to produce even more wealth.
At first, only the more fortunate can afford the new products; but eventually, through mass production and the development of more efficient production techniques, the price drops enough that even the poor can buy or at least use them. Computers, phones, automobiles, TVs, and stereo equipment were all once luxury goods.
Still, people complain that however much the quality of life of the poor may advance, they always remain behind the wealthy, who at all times have the latest and best technology, fashion, etc. available to them.
The relative misery of the poor is to some extent a feature, not a bug. The discomfort of their situation is supposed to impel them to get off their butts and aspire at least to rise to the middle class, which for most of the poor is a reasonably achievable goal. But if they lack the motivation or smarts to accomplish that, then it is best for relatively few of society's resources to be allocated to them, lest they waste them. Consider what happens when the average poor person wins the lottery; they usually run through it quickly, spending it on cocaine, hookers, and scam investment schemes rather than growing it into a larger fortune.
Polygyny helps propagate the best genes and game techniques
Applying economic concepts to the mate market, alphas are the rich; betas are the middle class; and omegas are the poor.
A polygnous system gives alphas a strong incentive to come up with game innovations and deploy them in the field. These social entrepreneurs put in effort and take risks that men with less initiative, drive, and ingenuity don't, experimenting with variations of their technique until they have a highly refined and effective system. This allows them to attract and marry multiple beautiful women, whom they can then, under polygyny, marry and impregnate, while continually searching for even more women, keeping their game sharp as they adapt their methods to an ever-changing sexual marketplace.
With these pretty young women, they beget a large number of handsome sons, whom they can then teach game through example and instruction. These sons in turn can therefore attract, marry, and impregnate gorgeous women as well, so that the diffusion of game accelerates exponentially. Physical beauty also proliferates in the population, as these sons have a combination of both good looks and puissant seduction skills that makes them lethally effective in their efforts to seduce, marry, and repeatedly knock up beautiful women.
Freedom creates the strongest incentives for improvement
What happens when law and culture put a ceiling on how many wives a man can have? First, it makes it harder for women to find an alpha to marry, because alphas, especially younger ones, tend to be reluctant to limit themselves to one woman for the rest of their lives. Secondly, when alphas do settle down, their game atrophies; even the most talented and experienced seduction artists can, through disuse, lose their ability to practice an up-to-date skill set for attracting women. What is more, their marital relationships suffer as they often slack off in maintaining their alpha qualities (lifting weights, maintaining tight game, etc.) since they no longer are out in the field looking for fresh new tail.
And what of the betas? Sure, they have an easier time finding a woman who will settle for them, after she finally gets kicked off the alpha cock carousel for exceeding its age and weight limits. But they don't have to work to improve themselves as much as they would've had to under the conditions of sharper competition created by polygyny.
Society as a whole progresses more slowly, because monogamists were too shortsighted to see that tolerating some inequity would produce dividends for all in the long run. People got so caught up in their feelings of envy that they insisted on pulling the elite down, when they probably could have shared in some of their success, or maybe even exceeded it, if they had been willing to try. It is similar to how those communist countries that forcibly divested the best and brightest producers of their accumulated wealth, in order to divide the spoils among the masses, found that all they did was impoverish everyone---without even producing the equality they had sought! The communist leaders still had a privileged and advantageous position. But they did not use society's resources to serve the masses as effectively as the captains of industry of old had.
Similarly, our system of monogamy has not made every man equal. In the competition to bang high-quality mates, the alphas still rule, and always will. The only difference is that their hands are tied from offering the benefits to society that they could extend if they had unrestricted freedom to marry as many women as would willingly have them.